Jump to content

Talk:Bulgars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bulgars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time

Tick box

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments on GA criteria

[edit]
Pass
  • Article has an appropriate reference section. I see that the citation style changed from long to short in May of this year during a single edit. For future editing it's worth noting that changing citation style in an existing article is generally discouraged per WP:CITEVAR. The edit also changed appropriate usage of {{Reflist}} to depreciated usage. See Template:Reflist for current guidance. A number of editors are still not aware of all changes. Just noting here for future editing. I get caught out on changes to guidance as well! SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Query
  • There's been some very recent edit warring, which if it continues would prevent the article being listed. My general approach in such situations is to extend the review rather than close it, to see if common sense can prevail. If someone deliberately disrupts an article during a GAN in order to prevent an article being listed, they can be banned from the article. I would not expect nominators or significant contributors to get involved in edit warring. If there are concerns about an edit other than obvious vandalism, rather than revert, the edit should be discussed on the talk page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed and hope for months for the common sense to prevail, but as can be seen on the Bulgars and some related articles, and recently on Bulgar language, as well noticeboard archive, it seems that the editor does not accept and understand that Wikipedia is edited according to NPOV principles. It was proposed a dispute resolution, but currently have no will and time to write an adequate resolution (with all the claims by the editor in question).--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:53-manasses-chronicle.jpg is tagged as needing attention. That should be dealt with before the review is completed or another image used in its place. I am uncertain as to why it has been chosen as the lead image to represent Bulgars. I cannot find details about the incident mentioned in the article. Indeed, there isn't much history in the article after the 7th century, which I will mention again when dealing with Broad coverage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before I rewrote the article the old revision had a map as the lead image. I was not fond of the image quality and that it only represents a certain date in time, and (with dubious extent) geographical location in their broader migration. I searched for an image wich could properly give, somehow strong, impression of the Bulgars. First used the image of the alleged Kubrat's sword (revision, web), but it was deleted due to copyright. There's not so good selection of images (categories at Wikimedia Commons Bulgars, Medieval architecture in Bulgaria, Monarchs of Bulgaria). I thought about to use an image of their 'capitals' Pliska and Veliki Preslav, or Bolghar, but they are generally not in the original shape, yet reconstructed in the recent two centuries. Thus decided for a medieval drawing, of which, found this most representative of the Bulgars army (seen in their outfit, wearing a Eastern type of helmet, similar to Sarmatian Spangenhelm). The image is part of the Constantine Manasses Chronicle, and needs better licence tag. Will see what can be done. Why the battle is not mentioned in the article will be commented below in "Broad coverage".--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, is it alright?--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The copyright tag is now sorted. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The information is in both Bulgarian and English, but barely legible. There's none. Indeed, it seems they are tangra-bg.org book publisher. It now raises the question of whether it is his own work. The user Jingiby account on Wikipedia is blocked since 2014, but hopefully on Wikimedia Commons Jingiby is still active. There will ask him about the image.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's still no answer from him, but I think that the image copyright is quite suspicious. I can remove it, and when we finish the text, will work on how to make a similar one.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image was also uploaded by Jingiby, and it looks like no one until now noted this issue, although is fairly used. It is atributed to Ivan Dobrev, Bulgarian academician and linguist. Think it cannot be found anymore on the website of the Bulgarian Military Academy. However, it can be easly replaced by the File:A jug with golden medallions.jpg.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fail
  • Broad coverage. There are images in the article which refer to events which are not mentioned in the text. The history mainly stops in the 7th century, though the images reveal that significant events in the Bulgars history occurred after that date. Unless there is a significant reason why the history after the 7th century is not mentioned, this article appears to be incomplete. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but I conceived is so to be historically concise ie. it exclusively mentions the history of the semi-nomadic Bulgars until the time of the 'five brothers' in 7th century ie. migrations with which they finally settled down. What happened with the Bulgars ruled by Batbayan there's no information, probably attended and disappeared somewhere in the historical events of the region. What happened with those led by Kotrag to the river Volga can be further read on the respective articles (Volga Bulgaria). The fate of the Bulgars led by Kuber (Macedonia) and Alcek (Italy) is similar to those ruled by Batbayan. The Bulgars led by Asparukh are the most known as were the founders of the Bulgarian nation. However, at want point of time should be distinguished the history of Bulgars from the history of Bulgarians. I think is - the disappearance of the culture and language, and original ruling elite influence. In the book by F. Curta, The The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, 2008, pg. 151 is written "since 1930... the tendency has been to distinguish between Bulgars (before the conversion to Christianity) and Bulgarians (after the conversion)".
When the Bulgars came to the territory of today's Bulgaria they encountered the native population of Slavs and Greeks (roughly to say). Since then we can follow the genesis and development of the Bulgarian nation. The Bulgars from today's ie. medieval Bulgarians differed in language, religious beliefs, traditional customs, social structure, but again who - at least the warrior elite or ruling class. How much they numbered, that's a hard question. According Jean W Sedlar (2011, pg. 424) "The Bulgar ruling class eventually abandoned its Turkic language and adopted Slavic so completely that no trace of Turkic speech patterns can be found in any Old Slavic texts... The 9th and 10th centuries marked an interval of bilingualism, after which the descendants of the original Bulgar conquerors gradually forgot their original Turkic vernacular and became entirely Slavic in speech. By the 12th century the proto-Bulgar language had utterly died out...". Since the Christianisation in 865 is followed gradual disappearance of their original beliefs and customs.
Although the source by Golden (1992) I mostly used for history did further venture into Bulgarians and Volga Bulgaria, I didn't see any point to simply copy the historical facts from other related articles, ie. why not to be included in related articles? The article is already big, and to further expand it in history section with historical facts already mentioned in related articles (like First Bulgarian Empire), with debatable time period until when to follow the term Bulgars... Actually, through the sections "Social structure", "Religion", "Language", "Ethnicity", even "Etymology" - are mentioned few dates, and can be comprehend who they really were, what characterized them, and when no longer. I think this is the most important part of the article.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica covers a longer period. Encyclopedia of European Peoples covers a longer period. This children's encyclopedia covers a longer period. The sources used in the article cover a longer period. I see that the Bulgars divided at the time of the five brothers, but sources continue the history after the split. The distribution of the Bulgars appears to be part of the story, as it is with articles on other such peoples who dispersed, such as Celts and Jews. As this article is about the Bulgars it should cover their entire history. If you wish to write only about the early period of the Bulgars, that could be a separate article, perhaps called Early Bulgars. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for new article. In the "Subsequent migrations" is noted that they merged with the other regional population, in "Society" that accepted their lifestyle, in "Religion" differences in type of burial cemeteries, and in "Language" that gradually slavicized. The ruling elite managed to preserve their identity for about 200 years, and that's around the time of Christianization (865 AD). This time period, of at least 200 years, must be mentioned, and since the scholars usually follow the history of Bulgarians from 865 AD, will name the succeeding section as "Bulgarian Empires", where will be mentioned the history of the First and Second Bulgarian Empire. The short history, few statements, about Volga Bulgars will add to the "Subsequent migrations" respective paragraph.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After changes, what is your current opinion on the article, what else would like to be done, beside copyedit?--Crovata (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mos - Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can be fairly easly done, and needs better one. I see that some interesting things, eg. religion and language aren't mentioned.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but when see the intro of article on Huns believe only partially. Is it too concise or needs better prose?--Crovata (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is difficult to follow in places with uncertain paragraphing - there are too many short paragraphs which inhibits reading flow, and makes it more difficult to absorb meaning because of the lack of organised structuring. The Turkic migration section is particularly difficult to absorb. Clear, readable prose which allows the general reader to understand the topic without undue effort would be what to aim for. This looks like a collection of facts - notes toward an article. The next step would be to write up those facts in an organised and readable manner. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In which parts found the reading difficult, except "Turkic migration"? The respective section was written so because each paragraph is about different date, event or source, more or less related. I thought the more concise, if can with original quote, the better as more interpretation of such distant events will lead to more confusion. Thing is, if recall right and see in notes, there isn't really any other historical fact, besides (F. Curta, Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar raiders, and Roman Special Ops, 2015) for some raids in 499, 502, 507, 530, 535 AD, and scholar consideration, besides (Uwe Fiedler, Bulgars in the lower Danube region, in F. Curta, The The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, 2008).--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The language is difficult in most places, and is full of errors, such that it would normally be considered a quick fail. Example: "Golden considered the origin of the Kutrigurs and Utigurs obscure and their relationship to the Onoğurs and Bulgars who lived in the same region, or in its vicinity, as unclear.[27][28] He noted the assumption of the two tribes being related to the Šarağurs (Oğhur. šara, "White Oğhurs"),[29] and that according Procopius there were two Hunnic tribal unions of Cimmerians descent and common origin.[27][30] The reason later Byzantine sources frequent linked the names Onoğurs and Bulgars is also unclear." Two of the errors in that I can parse ("according Procopius" should be "according to Procopius"; "sources frequent linked" should be "sources frequently linked" others I can't work out, so the meaning is lost, such as "Cimmerians descent and common origin". The article would benefit from a copyedit by someone with a good command of English, and who knows the topic well - but it would only be worth doing that, when the article's structure and the topic range is better established. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not native English speaker and this minor faults tend not to notice. Agree, when will finish the new section and lead will make you notice to decide. Should the previous copyedit reviewer Folklore1 be called? We could say that at least he got familiar with the article.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article would benefit from a strong and very experienced copyeditor. One I respect highly is User:Eric Corbett. If you could convince him to get involved I would have more confidence that this article could be brought to GA level. If he does take on the task, I would ask that you allow him to work unhindered - he works fast, making many changes, and this can unnerve some people. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Initially Eric Corbett accepted and done several edits, but [1] decided to withdraw.--Crovata (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I don't know who else to suggest. The article needs more than a simple copy edit, it needs a complete rewrite to make the issues clearer - Eric Corbett could have done that. I can see that you fully understand the topic, and are an appropriate person to bring knowledge to the article; what is needed, however, is someone skilled in communication and with a good command of the English language, who also has an affinity or interest in the topic and is prepared to work with you. Unless you have a solution in mind, I will close this review in the next 24 hours. When the language and clarity issues have been resolved you can nominate again. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have a solution for which can guarantee instant work and short period of time. It's alright, I agree with the decision. We went through several issues, will see if there's something more to bring, and will make a new migration image. Thank you for your time and am glad to have worked with you. When they are resolved would like to notice you to see if are satisfactory.--Crovata (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll take a look when you feel the article is ready to be nominated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]
  • I'm putting this review on hold. There are a number of issues with this article. There is information here, and some presentation of that information, but the article does not yet meet GA criteria. I haven't finished the review, though I have put enough indicators above to show why I feel this article is not ready, and what work needs to be done. I think this is a very big topic, and deserves to be taken seriously, with time taken to do appropriate deep research, and then organise and present the material. Given the current state of the article I don't see that sufficient improvement for such a big and complex topic can be completed in a reasonable time frame. However, I would rather support positive efforts to improve the article and build toward a GA listing, than simply close this GAN as a fail. I will keep the review open for a while to see what the nominator and significant contributors have to say. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as unlisted to allow time to resolve issue. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources and objectiveness

[edit]

Greetings,

I've been reading the discussion page about the Bulgars article and I noticed that editors tend to discredit any sources which are in opposition to the Turkic hypothesis (or in favor of the Sarmatian one) as unreliable purely on the basis that they're from Bulgarian authors. When an editor asks for reliable sources in English, "non-Bulgarian" is always a requirement, which I think implies that contemporary Bulgarian academia are all extreme nationalists who are writing out of "anti-Turkish sentiment", thus making them unreliable or incompetent. I find this completely false (not to mention offensive), for the following reasons:

1.the Sarmatian/Iranian hypothesis exists long before the 90's - Russian historian Nikolai Marr was one of the first to propose a Sarmatian origin of the Bulgars in the early 20th century. Veselin Beshevliev wrote an article Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians way back in 1967, where he concludes that all personal names from the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans are of Iranian origin and that this significant cultural influence has to be taken into consideration when determining Bulgar ethnogenesis.

2. the Turkic hypothesis was the official narrative about the Bulgars origin at the time of the Revival process and under Communist regime. So linking the Sarmatian/Iranian hypotheses of the 1990's with "anti-Turkish sentiments" and the Revival process in particular is simply absurd. Yes, there are many fringe theories in post-socialist Bulgaria which are nationalistic myths in their nature, such as the Bactrian hypothesis of P. Dobrev and the autochthonous hypothesis, but they emerge as a result of pluralism after the fall of old regime and cannot be linked to the Revival process when the Turkic theory was dominant.

I would also like to point out something else - when talking about "reliable sources", I think its ridiculous to refer to the Oxford's or some others Dictionary of World history as they are not historical/archeological research, but as dictionaries they themselves refer to previous research done mainly by Bulgarian historians such as Veselin Beshevliev (the first one to identify Bulgar inscriptions as Turkic), Vasil Zlatarski, Vasil Gyuzelev and others. Simply discrediting modern Bulgarian research made by serious academia as "nationalistic myths" or "anti-Turkish sentiments" without looking into the evidence itself is just lazy, anti-scientific and perhaps biased.


So, all that being said, I kindly ask the editors to review the sources below and finally do a fair edit on the Bulgars article as to represent the Scytho-Sarmatian hypothesis equally to the Turkic one. "Turkic semi-nomadic" has to be replaced with just "semi-nomadic". Britannica already edited their entry on the Bulgars in light of recent findings, so there's no reason for Wikipedia not to do the same. The fact that there is still an ongoing debate about the Bulgar origins amongst serious academia should be reason enough to edit the article, so I'm just appalled by the stubbornness of the editors here.


Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/194728109.pdf

Genetic evidence suggests relationship between contemporary Bulgarian population and Iron Age steppe dwellers from Pontic-Caspian steppe - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3.full

Archaeological and genetic data suggest Ciscaucasian origin for the Proto-Bulgarians https://www.academia.edu/43735252/Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto_Bulgarians

Еastern roots of the Madara horseman Chobanov - https://www.academia.edu/44604518/%D0%95astern_roots_of_the_Madara_horseman_Chobanov

THE LEGACY OF SASANIAN IRAN AMONGST THE BULGARIANS ON THE LOWER DANUBE (BG text) - https://www.academia.edu/44902361/%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%9E_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%90_%D0%9F%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%A3_%D0%91%D0%AA%D0%9B%D0%93%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%95_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%94%D0%9E%D0%9B%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%92_THE_LEGACY_OF_SASANIAN_IRAN_AMONGST_THE_BULGARIANS_ON_THE_LOWER_DANUBE

On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, Rashev Rasho 1992 http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html

Archaeological overview on the formation of Asparukh’s Protobulgarians Todor Chobanov Ph.D.,Ass.prof., Svetoslav Stamov MA, Duke University https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/24/687384/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true

Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians Veselin Beshevliev 1967 (BG text) http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori%20za%20indo-evropeyskiya%20proizhod%20na%20prabaalgarite/V_%20Beshevliev%20-%20Iranski%20elementi%20u%20pyrvobylgarite.htm


Thank you for taking the time to review this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.127.19 (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@188.123.127.19: Turkic one is not a hypothesis, it is documented and majority of historians agree with it, thus a mainstream view. Beshogur (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
bulgars being turk is purely based on historical beliefs. It is very upsetting to see evidence and scientific facts are put under a rug to someone's favour. Truth will always come out 212.5.158.31 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: It's definitely not a theory amongst archeologists and it is considered an outdated theory amongst contemporary historians. That's why this article has to be revised so as to be more objective and up to date with modern research.

A lot of mistakes, outdated information and bias, needs a lot more work

[edit]
Hello, I have made a few changes but there are a lot of other mistakes, I hope someone reads more on the subject and continues improving the article without a political bias. There are so many sources on the subject from foreign and Bulgarian scientists. If someone is interested, he/she may start from these scientific works. There is a lot of political bias on the subject which attracts a lot of factual mistakes and  intolerability to change opinions according to the new research that has been done on the subject.

https://www.academia.edu/50741981/The_debate_about_the_origin_of_Protobulgarians_in_the_beginning_of_the_21st_century

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3

https://www.academia.edu/49103702/Significant_Z_4_admixture_signal_with_a_source_from_ancient_Wusun_observed_in_contemporary_Bulgarians

https://www.academia.edu/30769850/Genes_found_in_archaeological_remains_of_the_ancient_population_of_the_Balkans

Please, someone make the rest of the changes using the latest data and research and not outdated and disproved theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careful information (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is nothing new about this Bulgarian view. That problem has been analyzed in the text. It has been disputed many times here on the talk. However here is not the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Just read carefully the text from the article: Among Bulgarian academics, notably Petar Dobrev,[1] a hypothesis linking the Bulgar language to the Iranian languages (Pamir[2]) has been popular since the 1990s.[3][4][5][6] Most proponents still assume an intermediate stance, proposing certain signs of Iranian influence on a Turkic substrate.[7][8][9] The names Asparukh and Bezmer from the Nominalia list, for example, were established as being of Iranian origin.[10] Other Bulgarian scholars actively oppose the "Iranian hypothesis".[11][12] According to Raymond Detrez, the Iranian theory is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated.[13] Since 1989, anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of the proto-Bulgars' Turkic origin. Alongside the Iranian or Aryan theory, there appeared arguments favoring an autochthonous origin.[14] Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources presented above are by Bulgarian researchers. Their position is clarified in the article, but it contradicts the prevailing international consensus and is not leading. Therefore, please stop trying to impose it in the introduction. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are favouring a biased view of history and the view of Turkish politics in Bulgaria, please stop reverting the edit. Thanks. Careful information (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based on reliable sources. Please, reach a consensus at talk before making further disruptive editiong. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article was updated with reliable sources and you are changing it. This will result in you losing your editing rights. Careful information (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the view that you support the current view on the page? What makes your opinion superior? I immediately request the change of the page. I have contacted Wikipedia and your undesirability to change based on the scientific links would be looked at. Careful information (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is quite old and this is the view that has prevailed over the years here. There have been many discussions, but the view of the Bulgarian scientists is not accepted as a leading opinion in the world science. Please present scientific publications from world universities that strongly support the Bulgarian view you espouse here. If you do not have such sources, comply with the current situation. The Bulgarian view is presented according to its weight in the world scientific consensus. Thanks. --Jingiby (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article is old, that doesn't mean it shouldn't change. I have already presented a scientific publication with the participation of Italian scientists. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/ Careful information (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the findings of the Italian scientists, I have used books from leading turkologists. Careful information (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is one Bulgarian primary source. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. Look for example at: Bayazit Yunusbayev et al., „The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia.“ PLoS Genetics 11:4 (21 April 2015): "The Chuvash received their Turkic ancestry around the year 816, according to its admixture analysis in S4 Table. This ancestry stems from the region of South Siberia and Mongolia. They are also related to nearby non-Turkic peoples. [...] Chuvashes, the only extant Oghur speakers showed an older admixture date (9th century) than their Kipchak-speaking neighbors in the Volga region. According to historical sources, when the Onogur-Bulgar Empire (northern Black Sea steppes) fell apart in the 7th century, some of its remnants migrated northward along the right bank of the Volga river and established what later came to be known as Volga Bulgars, of which the first written knowledge appears in Muslim sources only around the end of the 9th century. Thus, the admixture signal for Chuvashes is close to the supposed arrival time of Oghur speakers in the Volga region. [...]". Also this conclusion about modern Bulgarians: Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE."Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~2 to 4% is too little to say that the whole group is turkic. Many other European people have such genetic traces due to hunnic migrations that reached modern day Germany, if not beyond. Either the Bulgars are called "a mix of different groups" or not turkic because the view isn't supported by modern science. Careful information (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we don't rely on wp:or. Beshogur (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say we shouldn't listen to any Bulgarian scientists yet your nationality is Turkish and one might ask why we should listen to you. Careful information (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm why? Beshogur (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if most of the scientific articles are written by Bulgarians or not because even the well established foreign authors use Bulgarian works in their citations. There is a new leading theory and it is supported by Italian scientists as well, I have shared a link. Since the old theory doesn't reflect the truth, the wikipedia article should be changed. You can't expect forrign authors to know more about Bulgarian history than Bulgarians themselves. Genetic research cannot be biased or political, it is reflecting factual data and the truth here is the data shows that even Proto-Bulgarians and turkic tribes are not related. Careful information (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE. Not worthy to reply. Out of mainstream view. Beshogur (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Careful information, there is any new theory, but a fringe view of Bulgarian scientists, that is more then 30 years old, which has not been accepted widely. It is included in this article. The DNA study you have posted is Bulgarian, not Italian and is not a new, but out of date - more then 10 years old. It is also a primary source, i.e. not reliable source. Please do not comment on the nationality of the editors. If you do not reach a consensus here, as at the moment, you cannot impose your views in this article. In this case you should look for alternative methods that are indicated in the warning notes on your personal talk page. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, from now on I will kindly ask you to not comment on the nationality of the reasearchers because nationality bias isn't a logical argument for not accepting the truth. Archeological findings and linguistics are highly flawed methods of evaluating ethnicity since the discovery of genetic research. That's why the Iranian theories are more supported nowadays, and these theories have been around for more than a century and not close to 30 years as you have stated. Foreign researchers rely on Bulgarian scientists to give them data since there they have the most archeological sites and genetic data on the Bulgars - in Bulgaria. I have contacted Wikipedia and they have told me that unless the dispute is settled here, I will have to raise the issue.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/
This is not a Bulgarian study. There is no mention of substantial turkic element in the Bulgarian genetic makeup. There is a slavic group mixed with other non-turkic one.
"When we consider the composition of sources from within West Eurasia, while the majority of a group’s ancestry tends to come from its own regional area, there is a substantial contribution of both Northern European (light and dark blue) and Armenian groups (light green) to most WA, EC, WC, and TK clusters, as well as some clusters from both SEE and SCE. As previously reported, the formation of the Slavic people at around 1000 CE had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals." Careful information (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's still unclear what you're trying to push here. Most scholars, ie mainstream agrees on Bulgars' Turkic origin, and fringe view of some Bulgarian historians are mentioned as well. No Bulgars are not Iranian people as you're trying to push on the article. Beshogur (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, remain civil and don't use words as "push" when I am trying to improve an article with the latest data. Bulgars are Iranian people and this is a fact. I have shared the findings of western researchers and you still are unwilling to change your opinion, you don't leave me much of a choice than to resort to some other ways to solve this issue, ways recommended by the Wikipedia community. Greetings. Careful information (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure removing quotes of notable historians like Golden and adding Dobrev to this isn't improving at all. Your first source, p. 177 doesn't even say they're Iranian. I would suggest reading wp:or, wp:fringe. Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing old data and adding updated one is improving. My first source says they're Iranian. "The research carried in this study, combining written
sources, archaeological data and DNA research, brings the debate about the origin of Protobulgarians onto another level by identifying their Ciscaucasian “cradle” and thus – theirSarmatian-Caucasian origin, similar to this of Caucasian Alans." I would suggest reading about the Iranian tribes (Sarmatian and Alan included). Greetings. Careful information (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And for the study I shared, it's posted in 2013 and is not outdated at all, it's not older than 10 years, look again. And it is done in cooperation with Italian scientists. Thanks. Careful information (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Careful information, preprint sources shouldn't be cited until peer reviewed and published; Avant-garde Research of Ancient Bulgarians doesn't seem like a reliable journal and Yavor Shopov graduated (astro)physics while Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology, both aren't experts on population genetics. Will highlight the most important sentence from Shopov's 2021 book: "Regretfully no DNA data from rich Protobulgarian graves is available at present (for examplethe Kabiuk grave circa 700) and we could not check the existing theories that there were various ethnicities amongst the elite (Turks, Ugrians, Sarmatians), but future research should address this issue". However, will check the genetics section and maybe something can be added there.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nesheva is a geneticist and the informatian is published in her research. Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology and is PhD. Archeology is crucial in evaluating ehnicities and their origins when it is done along DNA research. Chobanov is not a geneticist but he cites world renowned geneticists like Garrett Hellenthal and George B J Busby. Even in the article itself it says that the origin is disputed, I recommend an edit in which the Bulgars are of mixed ethnicity or not turkic at all since the latest data confirms this. Greetings. Careful information (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Bulgars were Turkic tribes. There were no genetically pure tribes anywhere. Their language, culture and beliefs were Turkic and this is generally accepted everywhere except by some researchers in Bulgaria. Such a one-sided fringe view cannot used to change the intro of the article.Jingiby (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Bulgars were not Turkic tribes. Their language, culture and beliefs were not Turkic, their calendar wasn't Turkic as well. What is accepted outside of Bulgaria is that they were a mixture of different ethnicities. This is not a one-sided fringe view and it can be used to change the intro of the article. Careful information (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to many reliable sources and experts on the topic their language, culture, beliefs and calendar were Turkic. In the article is already mentioned several times that they mixed and assimilated a mixture of different ethnicities.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Careful information, doesn't seem you understand well what's written in those scientific studies, but I've made an edit considering what's concluded in reliable sources and NPOV. However, it should be noted that we are dealing with a steppe nomadic federation which assimilated diverse tribes and ethnic groups. It is highly dubious even controversial to claim anything for sure without any ancient DNA and even then if there's lack of sample size. Nesheva's conclusion did include, but isn't based on ancient DNA. Only because Altaic-Turkic Y-DNA haplogroups are present in very minimal frequency in modern Bulgarians doesn't mean Proto-Bulgarian elite wasn't partly, significantly or even majorly composed of Altaic-Turkic anthropology. Take for example recent comprehensive genetic studies of Proto-Hungarians i.e. Hungarian elite. The most probable scenario is that when Proto-Bulgarians arrived they already were a very mixed group of people with some leading clans of Turkic ancestry which elite didn't left enough genetic trace in modern Bulgarians.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated above the Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History's conclusion about Bulgarians and their Bulgar legacy is different. Hellenthal has the opposite opinion to that of Karachanak, claiming only the negligible Northeast Asiatic genetic signal among the Bulgarians might correspond to the whole DNA impact left from the invasions of the Turkic Bulgars. I am going to add this conclusion too. Miki Filigranski you are free to correct my edit if something is going wrong. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong, that's exactly what pointed out. Good edit and think with it the section is neutral enough.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand perfectly everything written in those scientific studies. You say we can't speak of pure ethnicity when we talk about a federation, so why aren't you supporting my suggestion to write "tribes of mixed ethnicities" and then add the few ethnicities? Even if a small part of the elite was turkic, it doesn't mean the whole ethnicity is because it is not. I suggest we write "a mixture" or "unconfirmed", "disputed", etc. Do you agree? Careful information (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the tribes had a distinctive ethnic identity and such identity goes beyond biology. In the article the topic of mixing with other groups is already mentioend and explained. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not true. This is what PhD Alex M. Feldman from the university of Birmingham says:
"Caspian Eurasia with the greatest care. It also means that a given “people” such as the Volga Bulgars or the Danube Bulgars, Rus’, Magyars or even the Khazars themselves were not so much a single migrating “tribe” or even a “tribal confederation” of peoples, as is often presented, 150 so much as conquering elite minorities imposing vassalage, tribute and possibly some form of monotheism on various populations along the way."
(Ethnicity and Statehood in Pontic-Caspian Eurasia (8-13th c.): Contributing to a Reassessment)
The tribes had a destinctive Iranian ethnic identity but I offered a way that is also scientifically backed up. It should be either "mixed" or "Iranian". Greetings. Careful information (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is simply WP:Civil POV pushing at this point. Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I love how Bulgarian scholarship desperately tries to play up the Sarmatian/Alan hypothesis, doing anything to avoid connection with Turkic and Siberian elements that are patently at least partly there. They just can't handle being connected to them. Word dewd544 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sophoulis 2011, p. 66.
  2. ^ Karachanak, et al. 2013.
  3. ^ Добрев, Петър, 1995. "Езикът на Аспаруховите и Куберовите българи" 1995
  4. ^ Stamatov, Atanas (1997). "ИЗВОРИ И ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ – І–ІІ ЧАСТ". TEMPORA INCOGNITA НА РАННАТА БЪЛГАРСКА ИСТОРИЯ. MGU Sv. Ivan Rilski.
  5. ^ Димитров, Божидар, 2005. 12 мита в българската история
  6. ^ Милчева, Христина. Българите са с древно-ирански произход. Научна конференция "Средновековна Рус, Волжка България и северното Черноморие в контекста на руските източни връзки", Казан, Русия, 15.10.2007
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rashev was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Бешевлиев, Веселин. Ирански елементи у първобългарите. Античное Общество, Труды Конференции по изучению проблем античности, стр. 237–247, Издательство "Наука", Москва 1967, АН СССР, Отделение Истории.
  9. ^ Schmitt, Rüdiger (1985). "Iranica Protobulgarica: Asparuch und Konsorten im Lichte der Iranischen Onomastik". Linguistique Balkanique. XXVIII (l). Saarbrücken: Academie Bulgare des Sciences: 13–38.
  10. ^ Maenchen-Helfen 1973, pp. 384, 443.
  11. ^ Йорданов, Стефан. Славяни, тюрки и индо-иранци в ранното средновековие: езикови проблеми на българския етногенезис. В: Българистични проучвания. 8. Актуални проблеми на българистиката и славистиката. Седма международна научна сесия. Велико Търново, 22–23 август 2001 г. Велико Търново, 2002, 275–295.
  12. ^ Надпис № 21 от българското златно съкровище "Наги Сент-Миклош", студия от проф. д-р Иван Калчев Добрев от Сборник с материали от Научна конференция на ВА "Г. С. Раковски". София, 2005 г.
  13. ^ Detrez, Raymond (2005). Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence. Peter Lang. p. 29. ISBN 9789052012971.
  14. ^ Cristian Emilian Ghita, Claudia Florentina Dobre (2016). Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe. p. 142.
Note! User "Careful Information" blocked as a sock in April ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.27 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User "Careful Information" isn't blocked as a sock in April. Careful information (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check the User Page for this user. "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of PavelStaykov (talk · contribs · logs).Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.0.129 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian nationalist agenda

[edit]

Stop pushing Bulgarian nationalist fringe views. According to Raymond Detrez, who is an expert in Bulgarian history, the Iranian hypothesis is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated.[1] Since 1989, anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of the proto-Bulgars' Turkic origin. Alongside the Iranian or Aryan theory, there appeared arguments favoring an autochthonous origin.[2] According to other authors:

Anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of Turkic origin of the Bulgars. Alongside the ‘Iranian’ or ‘Aryan’ theory, there appeared arguments favouring an autochthonous origin. The ‘parahistoric’ theories, very often politically loaded and have almost nothing to do with objective scientific research in the field of Proto-Bulgarian Studies, could be summarized in several directions:...3)‘Aryan roots’ and the ‘enigmatic Eurasian homeland’. Meanwhile, another group of authors is looking eagerly for the supposed homeland of the ancient Bulgarians in the vast areas of Eurasia, perhaps by conscious or unconscious opposition to the pro-Western orientation of modern Bulgaria. At the same time, with little regard for consistency, they also oppose the Turkic theory, probably because this is in sharp contradiction with the anti-Turkish feelings shared by nationalistic circles.[2]

Jingiby (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby, you should be aware that Turkish and Turkic are two different notions separated by hundreds of years, also that this is not Bulgarian nationalist agenda, the Bulgarian nationalists are claiming the mainstream historical narrative of Asian (Turkic or Iranic) origin. This is according to the recent genetic and linguistic studied many of us
are trying to implement in this article but you and others are constantly deleting. MiltenR (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Detrez, Raymond (2005). Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence. Peter Lang. p. 29. ISBN 9789052012971.
  2. ^ a b Cristian Emilian Ghita, Claudia Florentina Dobre (2016). Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe. p. 142.

Modern genetic studies and the turkic/asian origins hypothesis

[edit]
You've already had a discussion about this and you're not entitled to more of other editors' time. Remsense ‥ 论 02:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

According to modern Genetic studies neither the ancient bulgars nor the modern bulgarians have any significant asian admixture and modern bulgarians even less so than any other european population studied.

So that hypothesis is truly out the window. Should likely update that. The turkic/asian bulgar origins hypothesis first gained prominance in the 20th century and notably after the USSR was established for various political reasons which are beyond the scope to discuss here. But we should likely update the content as only Wikipedia is lagging here. Even Encyclopedia Britannica has updated the entry with the new findings many years ago. Are we regurgitating old debunked hypotheses here or are we going to cover hard science? There are already multiple studies confirming the same things. This is britannica "Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations." In wikipedia not even a mention and same tired old stories covered. 

Thatisme666 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bump 185.95.17.31 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody? 185.95.17.31 (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bulgars&oldid=1246703721"